Share on other sites

Secondly, the design philosophy of everything can damage everything (except CVs who get to sit at the back of the map) demands that a DD be able to shoot a BB and do significant damage.

On top of that you've the devs making arbitrary decisions about 'national flavour' (the IJN BBs get better range AND accuracy compared with USN, for example) such that Soviet DDs are more like light cruisers.

Yes it's ridiculous that a 'modernised' BB of the day can effectively be destroyed by a DD firing guns of a calibre that would be largely irrelevant to the BB, but that's how the game works. Same goes for smoke, which is not at all smoke but a game mechanic.

You either accept these things or quit. But don't come calling for 'realism' because you won't have any friends around here.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

the smokescreen's issue is that it's mostly effective on one side only. as the gunner, drop a smoke, i can see through it, just keep on firing, dropping torpedoes and all. this is why, smokescreens must only be used defensively rather than both. else, in all circumstances, CL/A, BB, and CVs should have at least a pop of those for their own protection.

smoke should be less aggressive but better in helping others, protecting oneself

First of all it's a tier 7 v a tier 5.

Secondly, the design philosophy of everything can damage everything (except CVs who get to sit at the back of the map) demands that a DD be able to shoot a BB and do significant damage.

On top of that you've the devs making arbitrary decisions about 'national flavour' (the IJN BBs get better range AND accuracy compared with USN, for example) such that Soviet DDs are more like light cruisers.

Yes it's ridiculous that a 'modernised' BB of the day can effectively be destroyed by a DD firing guns of a calibre that would be largely irrelevant to the BB, but that's how the game works. Same goes for smoke, which is not at all smoke but a game mechanic.

You either accept these things or quit. But don't come calling for 'realism' because you won't have any friends around here.

Cheers

I didn't mean that DD shouldn't be able to damaged by a BB like that

it just unfair for a player to be in a situation that the player will die later without any solution

it will at least make players less enjoy in the game

btw, after thinking for a night, I think a Kongo with 30kn speed should be able to escape, so it should be my own fault

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

btw, after thinking for a night, I think a Kongo with 30kn speed should be able to escape, so it should be my own fault

but a sluggish USN BB can't do so(I think)

It doesn't really matter what nationality BB you're in. Put that DD astern of you and force him to come after you. Alter your heading as if zig-zagging and when they do get into range to fire their torpedoes at you they'll have to turn to do so. You'll still be moving at the same speed forward with an opening range to them. Their torpedoes will either become to widely dispersed to hit you or allow you to maneuver and miss or they'll reach their terminal run. Just have HE loaded for them and keep the gun sight just below the bow and fire one turret at a time. If you get the advanced gunnery skill your secondaries will have the reach to start hitting them when they close (6 to 7.2km depending on the ship). I've killed a number of DDs that way who simple forget that in order to shoot their torpedoes they have to turn. Just be aware of your surroundings and your heading...don't want to beach yourself or you're done.

They should nerf smoke to stop covering them when they fire their main guns. They do it for AA when planes fly over, they should do it for ships who the DD fires on from smoke. Can't have it one way and not the other. That's not balanced.

Edited December 30, 2015 by RebelliousYankee

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

They should nerf smoke to stop covering them when they fire their main guns. They do it for AA when planes fly over, they should do it for ships who the DD fires on from smoke. Can't have it one way and not the other. That's not balanced.

When they fire their main guns, you can still see where the shots are coming from. From there, you can make guesses as to where he will be when your shots land and fire accordingly.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

the smokescreen's issue is that it's mostly effective on one side only. as the gunner, drop a smoke, i can see through it, just keep on firing, dropping torpedoes and all. this is why, smokescreens must only be used defensively rather than both. else, in all circumstances, CL/A, BB, and CVs should have at least a pop of those for their own protection.

Smokescreens work both ways. A ship inside a smokescreen cannot see out unless it has an ally outside the smokescreen relaying target information to them.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

They should nerf smoke to stop covering them when they fire their main guns. They do it for AA when planes fly over, they should do it for ships who the DD fires on from smoke. Can't have it one way and not the other. That's not balanced.

Incorrect. A ship will not be detected while firing its AA from inside smoke.

Suggested a long time ago that DDs sitting in smoke should get a dispersion penalty and lose their torp aim assist. You can imagine how popular that was, lol.

Smoke isn't 'smoke' in any real sense, it's a game mechanic that allows the DDs deploying it to cloak themselves for a certain period of time. That's it.

Just add it to the list of silly game mechanics that you need to be prepared to swallow. The less you know about any of the realities of the period (in this case how they made a smoke screen and what it did) the easier it is to do.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

i can accept being killed by torps in fact i welcome since i can train my mad dodge skillz... but never by guns thats only job is to set you on fire... i mean really? but hey i killed kievs under a minute with 4 shots but thats just me knowing their attitude... nerf kiev more

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Please, with your extensive knowledge of the period, be so kind as to explain to the forum just how smoke was made, how it was laid and what it was used for.

Having fun being smug? You know exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm not going to bother speaking about chemical smoke dischargers vs oil smoke from stacks, or the requirement to consider wind, or the fact that DDs don't "pop smoke" then sit in it with perfect firing solutions as though in the open (and doubly ridiculous for torpedo solutions on ships they can't observe).

Do you really need me to explain how silly many aspects of smoke in the game are vs reality?

I'm just typing off the top of my head. I imagine I could go look up examples of smoke used in WWII naval combat, but why would I bother?

Anyone who thinks smoke in this game is 'realistic' is an idiot.

In fact if YOU know the real production and employment of smoke and its effects and are calling me to account for suggesting the game models it unreasonably then you are being the worst sort of [redacted] because there are those who don't know and will believe you are right to suggest it isn't ridiculous.

I'm not going to bother speaking about chemical smoke dischargers vs oil smoke from stacks, or the requirement to consider wind, or the fact that DDs don't "pop smoke" then sit in it with perfect firing solutions as though in the open (and doubly ridiculous for torpedo solutions on ships they can't observe).

Do you really need me to explain how silly many aspects of smoke in the game are vs reality?

I'm just typing off the top of my head. I imagine I could go look up examples of smoke used in WWII naval combat, but why would I bother?

Anyone who thinks smoke in this game is 'realistic' is an idiot.

In fact if YOU know the real production and employment of smoke and its effects and are calling me to account for suggesting the game models it unreasonably then you are being the worst sort of [redacted] because there are those who don't know and will believe you are right to suggest it isn't ridiculous.

Share on other sites

I thought I answered the OP perfectly reasonably, including pointing out that a tier 5 being beaten by a tier 7 under specific circumstances isn't really surprising.

Made some points about the smoke mechanic being exactly that, a smoke "mechanic".

It's kind of funny that when I point out it's a game and its mechanics differ from reality there are those who are offended. What do they want to do, pretend that the mechanics ARE realistic? Get annoyed when someone says "no, they aren't realistic, but you need to understand HOW they work and then accept that's the nature of the game and keep playing, or don't"?

I thought I answered the OP perfectly reasonably, including pointing out that a tier 5 being beaten by a tier 7 under specific circumstances isn't really surprising.

Made some points about the smoke mechanic being exactly that, a smoke "mechanic".

It's kind of funny that when I point out it's a game and its mechanics differ from reality there are those who are offended. What do they want to do, pretend that the mechanics ARE realistic? Get annoyed when someone says "no, they aren't realistic, but you need to understand HOW they work and then accept that's the nature of the game and keep playing, or don't"?

Really don't see what the problem is.

And I've no idea who that person is, nor do I care lol.

Nobody gives two cents on whether this game is realistic or not. The only person that really only ever brings up the point of realism on a consistent basis i.e. 80% of his post where he wants to prove something is you.

Nobody gives two cents on whether this game is realistic or not. The only person that really only ever brings up the point of realism on a consistent basis i.e. 80% of his post where he wants to prove something is you.

Did you take lessons from Daigunsui on how to forum post?

Oh, I'm sorry, am I not conforming to forum orthodoxy as to valid opinions?